furls wrote:First dominoes are set to fall. According to ESPN, the Big XII is forcing Mizzou and Nebraska's hands, and I believe that will set this whole thing in motion. Should Mizzou and Nebraska move to the B10, then that effectively ends that B12 and everyone will flee sinking conference before the good seats in other conferences fill up. It still begs the question, where does Texas end up?

The more I think about it the less likely I think it is that Texas ends up in the SEC, it will come down to the B10 or the P10. Both are equally difficult logistically, now if the B10 splits into an East West and brings a few B12 teams into the mix well, then it can make life much more convenient for the folks from Austin. Definitely an interesting time.

I'd have to say that the B10 has a bit of a leg up, logistically, on the P10. The distances traveled between the two conferences will probably be the same, though the trek to Seattle from Austin is killer (about 2400 miles). All of the B10 schools are either in the same time zone or one ahead of the Texas schools. The existing P10 schools are either one or two time zones behind Texas, and the only possibility for schools in the same time zone would be those that are added through expansion. I think the time zone factor is a bigger factor in travel than distance.

Last edited by exiledbuckeye on Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Havn't seen a thing impact Lawrence this major since getting nuked in '83.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

skatingtripods wrote:The hell with that. Put Baylor in the MWC. It's becoming a pretty decent football conference anyway, and one they might have a chance to do something in. You could put A&M there too.

A&M deserves better than that.

just bring back the SWC.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

skatingtripods wrote:The hell with that. Put Baylor in the MWC. It's becoming a pretty decent football conference anyway, and one they might have a chance to do something in. You could put A&M there too.

According to JCoz's link, Texas and A&M are definitely a package deal and Colorado is a pretty sure bet for the Pac 10. I don't really understand the politics of it, but I have no idea what the hell Baylor has to do with where Colorado goes or who the Pac 10 invites.

Personally, I think the P10 has a leg up in the Texas derby and I think the P10 will do whatever it can to get them. The fact that the P10 is willing to take 6 Big12 teams and already has both AZ schools makes the conference a little easier for the travel and provides better baseball, which actually matters to some of those guys.

I think the P10 would be a bit of a mistake for UT and company because you really don't want to be subjected to the Pacific timezone more than you have to for other sports (Hoops). Noon kicks are 300pm on the East coast and that is fine, but 7pm tips on the west coast are 10pm tips on the east coast and that is problematic.

My dream scenario is:

UT, Tex A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou, ND. My next choice would Syracuse, then Kansas. All of the above schools bring some serious seats to the B10 network, fit the B10 academic profile and make for an easy East West split.

Makes the scUM OSU game an annual game, makes MSU/scUM an annual game, makes the Mizzou/Illinois game an annual game, makes A&M/Texas. Messes with the Illibuck, but who really cares.

Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

skatingtripods wrote:The hell with that. Put Baylor in the MWC. It's becoming a pretty decent football conference anyway, and one they might have a chance to do something in. You could put A&M there too.

According to JCoz's link, Texas and A&M are definitely a package deal and Colorado is a pretty sure bet for the Pac 10. I don't really understand the politics of it, but I have no idea what the hell Baylor has to do with where Colorado goes or who the Pac 10 invites.

I posted a link back a page or so. Apparently UT/A&M are not necessarily a package deal. Not yet, anyway. The longer this takes, the more time the Texas Legislature has to get their greedy hands on the deal and screw it up. If they have their way the 4 TX schools will be in the same conference.

I'm taking quite a bit of time tomorrow to look into every angle of expansion. I'm late to the party and it's frustrating me.

However, has anyone read or seen anything that details how and why Texas A&M and/or Texas Tech and/or now possibly Baylor would have to be linked together to join a new conference? What teams would go in what scenario to what conference?

Haven't found much that actually details why, aside from simple geological reasons and a basic overview of political reasoning.

To JCoz--you have been right on all accounts my friend. I apologize for wasting your time trying to respond to this whole deal without doing some research.

furls wrote:Personally, I think the P10 has a leg up in the Texas derby and I think the P10 will do whatever it can to get them. The fact that the P10 is willing to take 6 Big12 teams and already has both AZ schools makes the conference a little easier for the travel and provides better baseball, which actually matters to some of those guys.

I think the P10 would be a bit of a mistake for UT and company because you really don't want to be subjected to the Pacific timezone more than you have to for other sports (Hoops). Noon kicks are 300pm on the East coast and that is fine, but 7pm tips on the west coast are 10pm tips on the east coast and that is problematic.

My dream scenario is:

UT, Tex A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou, ND. My next choice would Syracuse, then Kansas. All of the above schools bring some serious seats to the B10 network, fit the B10 academic profile and make for an easy East West split.

Makes the scUM OSU game an annual game, makes MSU/scUM an annual game, makes the Mizzou/Illinois game an annual game, makes A&M/Texas. Messes with the Illibuck, but who really cares.

I think it's give and take there Furls. The B10 cannot, in any logical scenario, match the geographical package the Pacten could offer, which if we were concentrating soley on sports type, travel and style (particularly the non-revenue ones), would give the Pacten a leg up -

However you bring up a good point in that west coast game times are a big time hindrance to the money you could get in a TV deal.

The B10 network is an established success, and when you counter with the massive footprint that the B10 could achieve, both for the B10 network and more importantly for Federal research funding, as laid out in that link, the B10 could have up to 24 senators in 12 states pushing for those funds....well, I can only hope that this is like it has been reported, in the hands of university presidents.

If this were strictly a sporting decision, then the Pacten wins out, slightly, IMO. When all things are considered however, particularly from a university presidents POV, the B10 seems to me the much better move both for now and in the future...

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:First time in my life I have to thank Texas politics. I really really hope they can screw this up.

See the reason you are an absolute fool in this discussion is that the expansion is happening no matter what...

All you are rooting for in not wanting Texas or ND, is for the B10 to get a much less attractive package of teams in the end.

Change is imminent CDT, and here you are, wanting the B10 to sell dollars for ten cents each.

You can call me names. It's been done before and it doesn't bother me. If Texas politics can throw a wrench into this epic money grab, then so be it. I don't want to see expansion. I understand it's very likely, doesn't mean I have to like it or embrace it. It it happens it happens.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:First time in my life I have to thank Texas politics. I really really hope they can screw this up.

See the reason you are an absolute fool in this discussion is that the expansion is happening no matter what...

All you are rooting for in not wanting Texas or ND, is for the B10 to get a much less attractive package of teams in the end.

Change is imminent CDT, and here you are, wanting the B10 to sell dollars for ten cents each.

You can call me names. It's been done before and it doesn't bother me. If Texas politics can throw a wrench into this epic money grab, then so be it. I don't want to see expansion. I understand it's very likely, doesn't mean I have to like it or embrace it. It it happens it happens.

You can save your sermons and lectures, preacher.

Ok, let me backtrack and ask you a simple question:

In the event that the B10 decides to expand to 17 schools (16 teams), put yourself in the driver seat and pick the 5 schools you would accept....

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:First time in my life I have to thank Texas politics. I really really hope they can screw this up.

See the reason you are an absolute fool in this discussion is that the expansion is happening no matter what...

All you are rooting for in not wanting Texas or ND, is for the B10 to get a much less attractive package of teams in the end.

Change is imminent CDT, and here you are, wanting the B10 to sell dollars for ten cents each.

You can call me names. It's been done before and it doesn't bother me. If Texas politics can throw a wrench into this epic money grab, then so be it. I don't want to see expansion. I understand it's very likely, doesn't mean I have to like it or embrace it. It it happens it happens.

You can save your sermons and lectures, preacher.

Ok, let me backtrack and ask you a simple question:

In the event that the B10 decides to expand to 17 schools (16 teams), put yourself in the driver seat and pick the 5 schools you would accept?

lol. That's not really a question.

It's not a question I really want to answer because it makes me feel like a hypocrite since i'd rather it rain blood than to see any of these teams join the Big Ten.

But if I had a gun to my head, i'd say Nebraska, Mizzou (based soley on the notion that they could ferment a real rivalry with Illinois), Pitt, Notre Dame, and Virginia Tech.

Loo wrote:However, has anyone read or seen anything that details how and why Texas A&M and/or Texas Tech and/or now possibly Baylor would have to be linked together to join a new conference? What teams would go in what scenario to what conference?

Haven't found much that actually details why, aside from simple geological reasons and a basic overview of political reasoning.

It seems to be important to Texas to maintain a rivalry game with A&M without having to sacrifice an out-of-conference game to do so. If Texas joins the Big 10, they will likely continue the Oklahoma rivalry as an OOC game. A&M also makes sense from a Big 10 academic standpoint, they are a top-tier research university.

Baylor and Texas Tech are political problems. They have a lot of supporters in the Texas Legislature who want them to reap the $$$ that comes with major conference TV contracts.

I'm throwing this one out there for CDT...j/k, for completeness sake, here is another side of the coin....

I'd caution the reader though that nothing about a 4-16 team super-conference scenario precludes the death of the BCS or future prospects of a playoff....it just severely cuts off the options for the have-nots getting a piece of the pie when comparing that to HIS 16-team playoff scenario (which I was really into, even if it was a complete pipedream scenario that ignored many all-too important factors in reality)

Later I will post some some of the projections of revenue for the Pac-16 being talked about now, and why they seem extremely, and I really mean extremely optimistic, and even then would fall short of current B10 compensation....got to go work some....

The BCS has killed everyone financially. It’s killed them to the point only a dozen or so schools break even each year on athletics. Most athletic departments need student fees or taxpayer funded general university budgets to cover expenses (nearly $900 million combined in 2008-09 according to USA Today).

That includes even Big Ten schools such as Illinois ($4.5 million), Wisconsin ($3.4 million) and Minnesota ($3.4 million). Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books.

implies that the BCS has actually caused revenues from bowls to go down. In fact they have gone up, but hell don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. This is a pretty good conspiracy theory.

Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

The BCS has killed everyone financially. It’s killed them to the point only a dozen or so schools break even each year on athletics. Most athletic departments need student fees or taxpayer funded general university budgets to cover expenses (nearly $900 million combined in 2008-09 according to USA Today).

That includes even Big Ten schools such as Illinois ($4.5 million), Wisconsin ($3.4 million) and Minnesota ($3.4 million). Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books.

implies that the BCS has actually caused revenues from bowls to go down. In fact they have gone up, but hell don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. This is a pretty good conspiracy theory.

I agree Furls, Like I said, I was only trying to be fair by posting that one and showing a different opinion....I've actually liked Wetzels articles in the past....this one seems more like a plug to his book.

You know from my posts in this thread that I am for expansion, so I did not post it in support of his opinion.

Judging from some talk around ESPN and other sources today, we'll probably know more by Friday, when Mizzou and Nebraska would have to commit to the Big XII. Pac-10 commish has the power to do as he sees fit- the presidents signed off on it.

The TX legislature screwed this up before (see formation of the Big XII, and how TCU got screwed while Baylor got a spot). Why are they fighting for Baylor? Texas Tech I understand, they're public, but Baylor's a private school that would keep that extra money. Plus, they've blown for just about forever since the SWC got eaten up.

No way that the Pac-10 takes Baylor over Colorado unless the TX legislature bends them over. And if they do, where the hell does Colorado go? Definitely not the Mountain West. Would they come knocking at the Big 10's door?

If this power grab happens from the Pac-10, with the Texas legislature forcing them to take Baylor, does the Big Ten absorb most of the Big XII North, adding ND, Kansas, Nebraska, Mizzou and Colorado? UC-Boulder and Kansas are both AAU members (then again, so is Iowa State, but that's neither here nor there).

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Kansas chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little urged her Nebraska counterpart Monday to remain in the Big 12 and help avoid a potential calamity for the Jayhawks.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gray-Little said she got no indication of what Harvey Perlman might recommend when he meets with Nebraska regents on Friday. She said she also planned to call Missouri chancellor Brady J. Deaton with the same message.

In a rapidly developing story that's strained institutional relationships more than 100 years old, Nebraska and Missouri have both said they are interested in moving to the Big Ten. If they leave, that might prompt six other Big 12 members, including Texas and Oklahoma, to consider a possible linkup with the Pac-10. The death of the Big 12 could put Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State in danger of being left out of any major conference.

Kansas State and Kansas, even with its historically prominent basketball program, would have difficulty maintaining their status as major players in college athletics.

"There are some universities that survive and thrive without a large athletic program," said Gray-Little. "I hope we don't have to test that out."

I guess the way they have us picking up Nebraska, Missouri, and then raiding the Big East of Syracuse and Pitt allowing that conference to disintegrate and allowing us to force Notre Dame into the Big Ten as the 16th team.

So, the two weaker conferences are killed off, and then for some reason I see the SEC poaching Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St and Miami from the ACC, creating some sort of freak of nature conference, leaving the ACC to recreate it's own version of the weakass Big East.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have to ask. This conference reshaping has to affect basketball too, right? So if ND goes to the B10, they are a B10 team for basketball? Hard for them to leave the Big East.

Or will schools be part of two different conferences based on sport?

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

welp, looking more and more like it's going to be mizzou+huskers+pitt+cuse+ND?

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I would seriously be shocked if Pitt gets invited...they bring almost nothing to the table, just a team with their hand out.

Hey, they'd make it possible for me to get into a buckeye game in person every other year!

that.

I despise the city, but they rarely sell out Heinz, leaving plenty of open seats and the ability to see the Boilermakers and Buckeyes within a 2 and a half hour drive.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I consider myself a NCF outsider, but a couple small thoughts on this huge, huge, story...

I don't like that conferences will be so much larger than their schedules. I would rather see/play the same conference teams every year to determine "true" conf. champion. A Conference Championship Game solves for this, but still I like the option of a tradition sked and no playoffs. I don't see that option existing anymore.

With a smaller number of larger conferences, we're going to see conformity that leads to an NCAA playoff system sooner than later (Hooray for that!). Seems to me that it's gonna be a closed party- NO RANDOMS! Building a program from outside the power conferences to get into the dance is going to be damn near impossible.

I should embrace the changes, but I like randoms at a party and I like old-school schedules that lead to hard-earned conf. championships but yield arbitrary national champions that cause pissing matches between fans over "amateur" athletics. Can't stop progress...